Here’s a breakdown of the key arguments and themes presented in the provided text:
Core Problem:
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is insufficient to address the full spectrum of harm caused by attacks on water infrastructure in armed conflict. Specifically, it struggles to account for the long-term, indirect, and environmental/public health consequences.
Limitations of Current IHL:
Focus on immediate civilian casualties and tangible damage: The principle of proportionality, as conventionally applied, tends to overlook wider, indirect, or temporally-extended effects.
Lack of a general, unconditional prohibition: While some attacks on water infrastructure are prohibited (when indispensable for civilian survival), there isn’t a blanket ban on attacks that predictably cause public health crises or environmental collapse. High threshold for environmental war crimes: Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute requires “widespread, long-term, and severe” damage, which is difficult to prove and excludes many serious forms of environmental harm.
Supporting Arguments and Developments:
Broader legal discourse questioning IHL’s efficacy: Modern warfare’s cumulative and “reverberating” harms are prompting a re-evaluation of existing IHL rules.
International jurisprudence affirming consideration of foreseeable civilian harm: Decisions from tribunals like the ICTY (Galić, Gotovina) highlight the need to consider foreseeable civilian harm in proportionality.
Growing recognition of environmental protection in armed conflict:
ICRC Guidelines on protection of natural environment in armed conflict (2020)
ILC Draft principles on the Protection of the Environment in Armed Conflict (2022)
Emerging recognition of environmental crimes in warfare: There’s a growing awareness that grave, unlawful environmental destruction, including targeting ecosystems and life-support systems, may constitute an international crime.
ICC OPT Draft Policy Paper on Environmental Crimes (2024) points to increasing awareness.
Proposed Solution:
Develop clearer, more categorical prohibitions on attacks against water supplies and resources. This would be a “general, unconditional legal norm.”
Benefits of the Proposed Solution:
Strengthened protection for civilians and the environment.
Extended accountability under international criminal law: A clearer prohibition would support classifying targeting water infrastructure as a war crime, even if the current Rome Statute threshold for environmental damage isn’t met.
Overarching Message:
“Hands off water in war” must become a legal imperative,not just a normative demand.
Strengthening legal protection for water in armed conflict is crucial to prevent the weaponization of water. This can be achieved thru interpretive evolution of existing law and, where necessary, the progress of new norms.
In essence, the text argues that the current legal framework for armed conflict is lagging behind the realities of modern warfare, particularly concerning the devastating and long-lasting impacts of attacks on water infrastructure. It calls for a strengthening of international law to provide more robust protection for water resources and to ensure accountability for those who damage them.
